Re: [PATCH UPDATED 38/40] cifs: use workqueue instead of slow-work

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Mon Jan 25 2010 - 10:21:38 EST


On 01/24/2010 09:13 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> Are you sure it needs to be changed?
> I'm pretty sure we do. This flag only gets set to true if there's a
> reconnection event. If there is one, then any oplock break queued up
> before that happened is now invalid and shouldn't be sent.
> It's a fairly minor point however. Even if we send the oplock break,
> it's very unlikely to be treated as valid by the server as I don't
> think the file would have a chance to be reopened prior to that.
> If this is the way that the code works now, then let's go ahead with
> your version and I'll plan to queue up a separate patch to change that
> behavior after your changes go in.

Yeap, that sounds good to me or I just can queue a separate patch to
do that along with this one so that you don't have to remember
queueing it later.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at